I'm in the camp that believes the IL Derby purse increase AND the St Ledger purse could be better distributed by the two tracks. Frankly a $250k purse for the IL Derby would be sufficient for that race, but the Racing Board hacks used the excuse that by taking money from AP (thru dark days reduction) it would hopefully offset the removal of Haw from Derby consideration. The end result is likely significant purse decreases at AP for 2013 with minimal offsetting benefit. The IRB's action, coupled with their inaction on ADW is absurd.

Wow, I stand corrected. I never realized that simul betting was that lucative for the host.

It's why they fight tooth and nail over the dark days each year, and also why Illinois racing is all turned upside down where simulcasting and who has "host track" for how many days is more important than what's offered as a live product or any rational meet dates.

Beobob, I agree with you saying the same horses would come for $500,000 as for $750,000, that seems to be consensus of all horsemen. At that level, trainers shoot for timing of the race and distance and surface as the most important factors. When the transcripts of the IRB meeting are up, you can listen and hear Mike make that exact argument, and that to increase the purse while dropping overnights is a slap in the face of the Illinois horsemen. ( maybe not his exact words ) It didn't matter, the deal was the deal.

Concerning the St Leger, throwing $400,000 at an ungraded race, up against the Sword Dancer will never attract the top horses. ITHA reluctantly supported it last year with all parties agreeing to review it this year. Arlington claimed it was a huge success, ITHA contended it was a $300,000 loss to the purse account, with only 2 legit horses in the race. ITHA requested that Arlington split the loss with the horsemen, and Tony Petrillo said all races loose money - no.

In their cost cutting, Arlington dropped the purses for all 6 Illinois bred races, and from the Illinois owned races.

Thanks for the clarification ggenie. So it seems like the net net for IL horseman was a trade of changes to 6 IL bred races in exchange for a 250K increase in the IL Derby. Not a very good trade for us. Did we (ITHA) support HAW in the transfer of simulcast days? If we did, what AP did was payback. If we didn't, that was just a low blow.

I'm in the camp that believes the IL Derby purse increase AND the St Ledger purse could be better distributed by the two tracks. Frankly a $250k purse for the IL Derby would be sufficient for that race, but the Racing Board hacks used the excuse that by taking money from AP (thru dark days reduction) it would hopefully offset the removal of Haw from Derby consideration. The end result is likely significant purse decreases at AP for 2013 with minimal offsetting benefit. The IRB's action, coupled with their inaction on ADW is absurd.

The Illinois horsemen get the same $950,000 of earned purse money no matter which track is giving it away. Less money at AP = more money at Haw.

Arlington has 89 live dates for 2013. At an average of 8.5 races per day, that is ~757 races. $950,000 / 757 = negatory $1255 / race. If they gave up the $400k St. Hubbins, that would reduce to negatory $727 / race.

Did we (ITHA) support HAW in the transfer of simulcast days? If we did, what AP did was payback. If we didn't, that was just a low blow.

I sincerely doubt AP's lawsuit has anything at all to do with spiting the horsemen, because they get theirs no matter which track pays the purses. The issue is the $430,000 in track commissions, and the overall purse structure each track can control.

I sincerely doubt AP's lawsuit has anything at all to do with spiting the horsemen, because they get theirs no matter which track pays the purses. The issue is the $430,000 in track commissions, and the overall purse structure each track can control.

I realize the $$$ is the same, that wasn't my question. Did AP target the IL stakes to bear the brunt of the AP revenue lost due to the transfer of days to send a message? The net for horsemen is a transfer of IL stakes money to increase the IL Derby purse. That's a bad trade for us.

I realize the $$$ is the same, that wasn't my question. Did AP target the IL stakes to bear the brunt of the AP revenue lost due to the transfer of days to send a message? The net for horsemen is a transfer of IL stakes money to increase the IL Derby purse. That's a bad trade for us.

They probably did do that on purpose as punishment, but as for the specific reason of the 2013 dark days, who knows. They've (not just AP, but Churchill) been engaged in an ongoing battling the ITHA/Illinois horsemen on a number of fronts, including ADW splits, racing contract, how that boat money got spent, elections, trying to oust the ITHA to install their own puppets, and all the other crapola you read in their "messages to horsemen" and the ITHA's responses.

The ITHA stands for their own interests with the IRB, Assembly, and various legislation, while Mr. D and Churchill have their own agendas that don't necessarily seem to always have the interests of live racing in Illinois first and foremost.

Beobob, I agree with you saying the same horses would come for $500,000 as for $750,000, that seems to be consensus of all horsemen. At that level, trainers shoot for timing of the race and distance and surface as the most important factors. When the transcripts of the IRB meeting are up, you can listen and hear Mike make that exact argument, and that to increase the purse while dropping overnights is a slap in the face of the Illinois horsemen. ( maybe not his exact words ) It didn't matter, the deal was the deal.

Concerning the St Leger, throwing $400,000 at an ungraded race, up against the Sword Dancer will never attract the top horses. ITHA reluctantly supported it last year with all parties agreeing to review it this year. Arlington claimed it was a huge success, ITHA contended it was a $300,000 loss to the purse account, with only 2 legit horses in the race. ITHA requested that Arlington split the loss with the horsemen, and Tony Petrillo said all races loose money - no.

In their cost cutting, Arlington dropped the purses for all 6 Illinois bred races, and from the Illinois owned races.

No, it doesn't. beobob's original claim, back in post #1 of this thread, was that the opposition to the St. Hubbins with support of the IL Derby was entirely unfathomable and arbitrary, based solely on "Hawthorne good, Arlington bad."

And furthermore, from what ggenie just wrote, it sounds to me as though the ITHA was actually arguing to the IRB against the increase to $750k, which would mean the original premise on which the claim was based was wrong.

No, it doesn't. beobob's original claim, back in post #1 of this thread, was that the opposition to the St. Hubbins with support of the IL Derby was entirely unfathomable and arbitrary, based solely on "Hawthorne good, Arlington bad."

And furthermore, from what ggenie just wrote, it sounds to me as though the ITHA was actually arguing to the IRB against the increase to $750k, which would mean the original premise on which the claim was based was wrong.

So then, based on what ggenie has told us, the ITHA was against both the IL Derby increase and the St Leger race. Yet in the IRB stakes approval meeting they opposed AP and supported HAW. I understand if it would have been fruitless to oppose the Derby increase if a deal had been cut, but why then couldn't the ITHA then have no opinion on HAW's proposal or tell the IRB "you know our position on this"? Why come out in support of it?

The appearance to a simple minded person such as myself if I see 2 proposals that are both bad for local horsemen, and one is supported and one is opposed, is one of favoritism. In fact, it could be argued that this is the worst possible outcome for IL horsemen because not only did we lose what could have been overnight money to the Derby increase, we also lost 300K in purse decreases in IL bred and owner purses as well.

I know you can't publicly acknowledge the inconsistency of this action, but I think most see it.

So then, based on what ggenie has told us, the ITHA was against both the IL Derby increase and the St Leger race. Yet in the IRB stakes approval meeting they opposed AP and supported HAW.

I think you're basing an awful lot on your own interpretation of what Marcus' wrote and didn't write. What he wrote was,

"The Illinois Thoroughbred Horsemenís Association voiced opposition to the $400,000 American St. Leger, a 1 3/4-mile turf race on Million Day that was introduced in 2012.The ITHA backed the $250,000 Illinois Derby purse increase despite the fact Hawthorne has cut overnight purses for the start of its 2013 winter-spring meet, which begins Feb. 15."

but what he didn't write was what the Trib reported, and what ggenie also reported,

"The Illinois Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association supported the decision to increase the purse by $250,000 but there was a string attached. Hawthorne agreed to reduce purses at its fall meeting by an equal amount and put the money into daily purses at its Feb. 15-April 28 spring meeting."

In other words, they had a problem with it but end up cutting a deal on it. No deal reported regarding the St. Hubbins from AP.

I'm thinking maybe I want or listen to, or read, that IRB meeting myself before I jump to any conclusion regarding "opposed" and "supported", because it's quite obvious the reporting we read (or don't read) influences our conclusions.

Quote

The appearance to a simple minded person such as myself if I see 2 proposals that are both bad for local horsemen, and one is supported and one is opposed, is one of favoritism.

Reconsider it in the light ggenie explained to you. They opposed both, got a deal on one, and ended up with both shoved down their throats anyhow so WTF difference does it really make whether they "opposed" or not? Is the one where they got a mitigating deal for Illinois horsemen better, or the one where the track ran over them roughshod?

"The Illinois Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association supported the decision to increase the purse by $250,000 but there was a string attached. Hawthorne agreed to reduce purses at its fall meeting by an equal amount and put the money into daily purses at its Feb. 15-April 28 spring."

I agree that there are nuances throughout this deal and I might have jumped to wrong conclusions if we didn't support one and oppose the other as I understood what was reported. But whether the 250K comes from the spring overnights or the fall overnights it still comes from the overnights and is a bad deal for IL horsemen. All that happened was we delayed the pain for 6 months.

I agree that there are nuances throughout this deal and I might have jumped to wrong conclusions if we didn't support one and oppose the other as I understood what was reported. But whether the 250K comes from the spring overnights or the fall overnights it still comes from the overnights and is a bad deal for IL horsemen. All that happened was we delayed the pain for 6 months.

It's also, as ggenie said, money the IRB directed to Hawthorne in part to support the Illinois Derby (and the Spring meet it anchors). For the horsemen to get up there in front of the IRB and argue against using the money as the commissioners had intended probably would not have helped their case with the IRB. They now have an annual battle to hold back the assault of the greedy gobbling Churchill/Arlington monopoly monster that wants to eliminate Spring racing altogether for the sake of the lucrative simulcast dark days (see above), all to fund more St. Hubbins races for Mr. D's yellow socks yachting buddies from out of state. It would put them (Illinois horsemen) effectively out of business for 5 months of the year unless they want to turn into gyps.

Beobob,I agree that the 250,000 increase in the IL Derby could have POSSIBLY helped the image of Hawthorne racing "long term", at some point. But after these past 5 months, I'm not exactly sure that the image etched in the minds of horsemen all over the country can be improved by an extreme purse increase. It seems rather desperate to me. We are practically considered lepers at this point. After what the horsemen, big and small outfits have been through in the past 5 months, it seems to me that they would not cut the purses of the everyday horsemen and make a statement that they were going to use those funds to help the local horsemen get back on their feet. Show the horsemen just a little good will for running their horses through a deadly virus. JUST THINKING that that would go ALOT further in improving their "image ". A quarter of a million dollar increase for a race that means little or nothing to the local horsemen who have had no choice but to stay here and suffer, and not make money, and lose clients seems quite like a slap in the face. To say that the "Illinois horsemen" supported the increase is ridiculous. Just take a leisurely stroll through the barn area on any given day and ask.....the answer will be that they most definitely do not support an increase of 1 race, for Hawthornes "potential image purposes" if it means the rug of our very livelihoods will be pulled out from under our feet. Ask, just...ASK....

BTW, how about those extensive track repairs...huh ? Everyone has GOT to feel safer now...

And honestly, I like yellow socks. I love yachts. And, how many gypsies do you know, personally that you feel informed enough to criticize them....

A quarter of a million dollar increase for a race that means little or nothing to the local horsemen who have had no choice but to stay here and suffer, and not make money, and lose clients seems quite like a slap in the face.

Quoting again someone who actually knows something about the situation, ggenie:

2 points: 1). When the IRB awarded Hawthorne the extra 10 days of simulcasting, they intended a portion of it to go to the Derby. In fact, one commissioner said he would have liked to see the purse raised to a million. 2). The extra 10 days translates to about a million to the purse account. In light of Arlington suing the IRB over those days, and if Hawthorne did not use a portion of that money as intended, is the ITHA wrong to not oppose the Derby to get the other $750,000 into Hawthorne's purse account?